THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Contents Display
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5005, HOMELAND SECURITY ACT OF 2002 --
(Extensions of Remarks - July 29, 2002)
[Page: E1460] GPO's PDF
---
SPEECH OF
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, July 25, 2002
- Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I do not oppose this rule because I would like to
consider this important issue, but I am very concerned with the process of
bringing this legislation before this body.
- Mr. Speaker, since we began looking at proposals here in the House of
Representatives, more questions have arisen than have been answered. We have
put this legislation on a ``fast track'' to passage, primarily for reasons of
public relations, and hence have short-circuited the deliberative process. It
has been argued that the reason for haste is the seriousness of the issue, but
frankly I have always held that the more serious the issue is, the more
deliberative we here ought to be.
- Instead of a carefully crafted product of meaningful deliberations, I fear
we are once again about to pass a hastily drafted bill in order to appear that
we are ``doing something.'' Over the past several months, Congress has passed
a number of hastily crafted measures that do little, if anything, to enhance
the security of the American people. Instead, these measures grow the size of
the Federal Government, erode constitutional liberties, and endanger our
economy by increasing the federal deficit and raiding the social security
trust fund. The American people would be better served if we gave the question
of how to enhance security from international terrorism the serious consideration it
deserves rather than blindly expanding the Federal Government. Congress should
also consider whether our hyper-interventionist foreign policy really benefits
the American people.
- Serious and substantive questions about this reorganization have been
raised. Many of these questions have yet to be resolved. Just because a bill
has been reported from the Select Committee does not mean that a consensus
exists. Indeed, even a couple of days before consideration, this bill it was
impossible to get access to the legislation in the form introduced in the
committee, let alone as amended by the committee.
- In the course of just one week, the President's original 52-page proposal
swelled to 232 pages, with most members, including myself, unable to review
the greatly expanded bill. While I know that some of those additions are
positive, such as Mr. ARMEY's amendments to protect the privacy of
American citizens, it is impossible to fully explore the implications of this,
the largest departmental reorganization in the history of our Federal
Government, without sufficient time to review the bill. This is especially the
case in light of the fact that a number of the recommendations of the standing
committees were not incorporated in the legislation, thus limiting our ability
to understand how our constituents will be affected by this
legislation.
- I have attempted to be a constructive part of this very important process.
From my seat on the House International Relations Committee I introduced
amendments that would do something concrete to better secure our homeland.
Unfortunately, my amendments were not adopted in the form I offered them. Why?
Was it because they did not deal substantively with the issues at hand? Was it
because they addressed concerns other than those this new department should
address? No, amazingly I was told that my amendments were too ``substantive.''
My amendments would have made it impossible for more people similar to those
who hijacked those aircraft to get into our country. They would have denied
certain visas and identified
Saudi Arabia as a key problem in our attempt to deal with terrorism . Those ideas were deemed
too controversial, so they are not included in this bill.